[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats what we do. When theres a problem we declare war on it, we don't do anything about it. We Just declare war on it. Throw alittle money in around the elections. The drug laws are a joke. Poverty isn't rampit. I'm not saying it dosen't exist, but we got rid of the soup kitchens a long time ago. The war on terror has been good and bad. Iraq is being fought poorly because of P.C., and other political crap. We need to march, and kick em all out. Republican, Democrate, Liberal, or Conservative. None have our interest at heart.

[/ QUOTE ]
War on terror and war on crime are other examples. War on anything means big boondoggle wasting tons of resources with mostly destructive results.

Real wars are the same thing. Never ending, no results, lots of casualties are destruction to country where war is.

As for Iraq, we could be harsher, but there are already complaints about civilian casualties and interogation methods. I think it is awfully difficult to subdue a middle eastern country without being awfully ruthless. However, the US can't operate like Saddam Hussein, and if the US took a harsher approach, the bad publicity in the mideast and Europe would be worse.

There was controversy about not taking a stronger approach is Vietnam also. However, the whole nature of these conflicts is likely to produce an endless quagmire. The same is true for domestic wars in drugs, crime, poverty, and terror. They are completely unwinnable by their very nature.